Viewing Thread:
"U2 - Your opinion."

Musical geniuses and pioneers who deserve to live on into eternity?

OR

A slightly better than average band who really should have given it up by now?


Discuss.

> Flock wrote:
> Used to be great, getting a bit commercial, still not as blatant as
> Bon Jovi or as bad.
> U2 1980-2002 = Band
> U2 2002-2005 = Brand

I guess it's true. Lately it's been a hit or a miss, with a lot of filler. Whereas they never had a shortage of quality before.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Pfft. Never knock the Jove.

It's my life and all that tampon music...
:D

And I reported you, but it was
> accidental.

Lol.

Flock wrote:
> Used to be great, getting a bit commercial, still not as blatant as
> Bon Jovi or as bad.
> U2 1980-2002 = Band
> U2 2002-2005 = Brand

Pfft. Never knock the Jove. And I reported you, but it was accidental.

The song they did for Batman 3 or 4 was their best work that I've heard.

They're a bit too flashy with not enough substance for my liking.

Shouldn't have given it up by now.

Equally shouldn't be Gods.



The Edge alone owns.

Vertigo was worth them still existing for. Practically any of their songs beats some of the other modern crap churned out by new bands.

U2?

Crock.

Of.

Sh!te.

Dringo wrote:
> Oh GOD! The new album is funking terrible.

That's a bit harsh.

Some of the tracks are really quite nice after a few listens.

Used to be great, getting a bit commercial, still not as blatant as Bon Jovi or as bad.
U2 1980-2002 = Band
U2 2002-2005 = Brand

Reefer wrote:
> They get unfairly criticised in my opinion. Although their new album
> is fairly cack.

Oh GOD! The new album is funking terrible.

I went to see them in sloane castle in 2001. or was it 2002.. and i ended up on paying £100 each. But was well worth it.

The new album gets better the more times you listen to it - most of the tracks are actually fairly solid, with the exception of A Man and a Woman and Crumbs from Your Table, which are rubbish.

That Maddox is a silly fool.